[Haskell-cafe] FW: Haskell
westondan at imageworks.com
Tue Apr 1 18:41:30 EDT 2008
This one's easy to answer:
When I studied Scheme, I did not have an uncontrollable urge to pore
through arcane papers trying to find out what the heck a natural
transformation was, or a Kleisli arrow, or wonder how you can download
Theorems for Free instead of having to pay for them, or see if I really
could write a program only in point-free fashion. Nor did I use to take
perfectly working code and refactor it until it cried for mercy, and
then stay awake wondering if there was some abstraction out there I was
missing that would really make it sing.
You can debate the role of Haskell as a programming language per se, but
when it comes to consciousness-raising, the jury is in...Haskell is my
drug of choice!
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> Dear Haskell Cafe members
> Here's an open-ended question about Haskell vs Scheme. Don't forget to cc Douglas in your replies; he may not be on this list (yet)!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. Gregor [mailto:kerrangster at gmail.com]
> Sent: 30 March 2008 07:58
> To: Simon Peyton-Jones
> Subject: Haskell
> In your most humble opinion, what's the difference between Haskell and
> Scheme? What does Haskell achieve that Scheme does not? Is the choice less
> to do with the language, and more to do with the compiler? Haskell is a
> pure functional programming language; whereas Scheme is a functional
> language, does the word "pure" set Haskell that much apart from Scheme? I
> enjoy Haskell. I enjoy reading your papers on parallelism using Haskell.
> How can one answer the question--why choose Haskell over Scheme?
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
More information about the Haskell-Cafe